Caroline Maxwell and identification

[RivkahChaya]

She went to a lot of trouble to mislead.
Regards Richard.

I have trouble jumping to that conclusion without knowing exactly how the police questioned her. Had the victim's identity already been established by Barnett when she was questioned? Also, does anyone know whether she came forward entirely of her own accord, or was she someone in the area who the police stopped to question, or someone who lived in the area who police questioned in a door-to-door canvas?

[Wickerman]

Hi,
Didn't Mrs Maxwell describe clothing that was found in Kelly's room, which would suggest that she saw the right woman..[ or alleged too]

That point was raised elsewhere, yet we have still to see how well the clothing found in the room compared with Maxwell's description.

So we are back to my original point.
She went to a lot of trouble to mislead.
Regards Richard.

Doesn't that suggest it was intentional?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Didn't Mrs Maxwell describe clothing that was found in Kelly's room, which would suggest that she saw the right woman..[ or alleged too]
It would be unlikely that she saw another person by mistake , if the clothing descriptions were accurate, even if she made the sighting up, she was describing the woman from Kelly's room..albeit from memory of Mary wearing such items from the recent past if a deliberate lie.
It is absolutely right in mentioning ,that until the body was discovered, no mention of the victims looks were in the media, although obviously people who knew her locally were aware of her features.
Whatever way we analyze Maxwell's version, it is highly dubious, the clothing descriptions, fitted clothing owned by the victim, making it unlikely that Maxwell made a honest mistake
The errands made by the witness were checked and verified to be true, making it almost certain that the date of the alleged sighting was not a mistake.
So we are back to my original point.
She went to a lot of trouble to mislead.
Regards Richard.

[RivkahChaya]

I'm still not making myself clear. I have been reading accounts of trials where people were convicted on the strength of eye-witness testimony, where the witnesses had nothing to gain, and if they ever had a motive, it was never anything more than a desire to be helpful.

What I am suggesting is that Mrs. Maxwell had a false memory of seeing MJK, that she firmly believed was true, and the she was in fact in the exact place she said she was, at the exact time she said she, and had MJK also been there, could have spoken to her. She may have spoken to someone else, or spoke to MJK on another day, but the false memory came about because during the initial police investigation, the police were not necessarily able to communicate very clearly who they were talking about, since the police did not know MJK, and did not have a photo of her.

I know that sound very television-y, but actually, that hasn't been the plot of many TV shows, because they like drama where the eye-witness points to the defendant and nails him. Statistically, witnesses don't do as well in real life as they do on TV.

The reason I'm suggesting police miscommunication may have been involved is that there are so many different descriptions of the men who were with MJK the night before. I realize she could have been with a lot of different men, because that's what she did for a living, but still, if she did it for a living, you'd think she might be a little more skilled at getting a lot out of one man by working him for a whole evening, than by working a series of two-pence hook-ups, which is what the women hooking for doss money did.

Mrs. Maxwell's testimony was confident at the inquest, but we don't know how confident she was the first time she was interviewed. By the inquest, she was rehearsed.

A false memory is different from a mistake. A mistake is thinking Maria Harvey is MJK, and then seeing Maria Harvey, and realizing she had her name wrong for months. A false memory is having the police suggest to you that you may have seen something, and concocting a "may have" story to be obliging, which becomes more fixed with each retelling, or talking to someone, not remembering who, and then fixing the first name suggested to you on the person, and being absolutely convinced that is who you talked to. It isn't lying, because the person relating the story believes it to be true.

In regards to MJK having striking looks and standing out: do we have any sources for that from before her death?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
As Dave says the letter is suggestive.
I am not usually fond of conspiracy theories, the Royal connection, JFK twaddle never appealed.
But I can't get away from the 14, Dorset Street letter, we have a residence exactly opposite Millers court, the scene of the forthcoming murder, sent one week prior to it.
We have that address..being the residence ,[ or place of income of the husband ] of the most contradictory witnesses of the whole Ripper case.
Many questions are asked.
Is it not a major coincidence, that the very next work of the Ripper, should occur from a location right opposite where the said letter was penned?
Is it not a coincidence. that it happens to be connected to the Maxwell's , considering the contradictory statement made by Caroline Maxwell.?
Why should a person that may have had connection to the murders in some form, draw attention to themselves.?
Why send it to another police force?
If Mrs Maxwell was lying...why?
Mrs Maxwell' evidence includes, not only a sighting of a victim , long after they was dead, but also an alleged conversation with her.
This would apply three explanations.
A] The medical reports were wrong, but how do we explain the food digestion?
B] Mrs Maxwell was genuinely mistaken, and her error was not realized despite, a weekend, and a inquest to refresh her memory.
C] Mrs Maxwell had some good reason to give doubt over the time of death..?
Because of the letter, and its many questions, I plump for option C..
Despite the storm in a teacup it raises.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Maxwell would have known who Mary Kelly was she chose to lie about seeing her after she was dead why?.No one is that stupid to get dates and times so wrong so why lie if she wasn't sure why come forward.Richard has stumbled across something here which needs further investigation.

The more you read on Casebook the more you will realize how people can be so certain yet totally mistaken.

On a more serious note, reflect back on the testimony of Mary Malcolm, a witness in the Stride case.

Mary Malcolm was the next witness, and she was deeply affected while giving her evidence. ............ I have seen the body at the mortuary. I saw it once on Sunday and twice yesterday.
[Coroner] Who is it? - It is the body of my sister, Elizabeth Watts.
[Coroner] You have no doubt about that? - Not the slightest.

The body in the mortuary was her sister, she had not the slightest doubt - but she was wrong.
Likewise Maxwell was no less certain that she saw Mary Kelly, and no less wrong. It is not as unusual as you might think.
Lets not create a storm in a teacup

[c.d.]

While not nearly as intriguing as a good conspiracy theory, I think it is much more likely that she was not lying but was simply mistaken.

c.d.

[Cogidubnus]

Silver Hammer?

It's certainly possible Jason...the letter is indeed suggestive...

The fact that the Coroner called up her testimony, albeit with a caution, is perhaps indicative that he may just have thought there might be something there...as the inquest was certainly otherwise truncated why waste time with her unless there was?

On the other hand, it might be that there were wild rumours circulating in the neighbourhood at the time, and he wished to demonstrate that he'd at least paid lip service to investigating the truth or otherwise of these...

Quite how one would proceed to investigate further, I really don't know

All the best

Dave

[pinkmoon]

Maxwell would have known who Mary Kelly was she chose to lie about seeing her after she was dead why?.No one is that stupid to get dates and times so wrong so why lie if she wasn't sure why come forward.Richard has stumbled across something here which needs further investigation.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I can see where you are getting at, however one or two points to make.
The woman known as Mary Jane was reported to have been not short on looks, a fine head of hair, and quite a local character.
For Mrs Maxwell to have mistaken her for someone else, surely would only have been short lived, ,,until she attended the inquest.
She stated that she knew Barnett, and she connected him with the dead woman,
She stated that she knew the dead woman by name, and she often saw her about the lodging house.
If she had mistaken her for young Lizzie Albrook[ which I consider possible] she surely would have realized her mistake by the time of the inquest, if not over that weekend.
The fact is Caroline Maxwell stated quite clearly,that she was not mistaken on day or person, and maintained throughout that her sighting was accurate , despite the police questioning , and the coroners firm warning.
We are left with two scenario's ..
A] Kelly was alive at 845am, making the medical reports completely wrong.
B] Mrs Maxwell had a real good reason to insist upon that sighting.knowing it was false.
Both of these go against the grain.
The former. would make the medical examination a farce, the reports of remains of fish and potatoes , suggest a much earlier time of death then approx 845am.
The latter,would suggest that Mrs Maxwell deliberately intended to mislead the police, making her a very suspicious character indeed.
Regards Richard.

[RivkahChaya]

I guess I phrased it badly. I didn't really have my thoughts collected well.

I didn't mean that Caroline Maxwell thought Maria Harvey was the victim. I mean that the police were not able to communicate clearly who the victim was. We can't know exactly what Mrs. Maxwell understood, but it couldn't have been as simple as confusing Maria Harvey and MJK, or, as you say, she would have realized her mistake when she saw Harvey at the inquest.

I've just read a couple of different books on memory, and when witnesses give statements, they don't just rewind a videotape of what they saw. They actually rehearse their memory, and each time they tell a story, they become more confident in it, even if it is demonstrably false.

I'm suggesting that lacking a photograph, or even a very good description of MJK in life, and unable to get a mortuary photo that was helpful, the police may not have been able to get very useful witness statements from anyone regarding the Miller's Court murder.

If anyone has any information regarding exactly what language the police used in questioning witnesses, I'd be interested. They certainly did not go around showing people a picture of MJK, and asking people if they saw that woman the night of the murder, or the morning of.

This may be the reason there are so many conflicting descriptions of who she was with. Even assuming that the same person killed MJK, and the other C4 (or C4 - Stride), nothing we have from witnesses regarding the Miller's Court murder may be very useful in tracking the killer down.

If some policemen questioned witnesses about "the woman who lived in Miller's Court," some people may have described men who were with Maria Harvey. If policemen used a physical description of MJK, there is no assurance that the people they talked to actually described men who were with MJK-- some may have described men who were with other women who fit her general description, and then, the police may not have been consistent in how they described her. Even when people assured the police that they knew who MJK was, we don't know that they really did, because they could not confirm it by looking at a photo.

[Robert]

Hi Riv

But as Harvey was at the inquest, would not Maxwell have realised her initial error and corrected it?

[RivkahChaya]

I have been wondering something recently regarding Mrs. Maxwell's testimony.

Does anyone know exactly how the police framed their questions when they talked to her, or what prompted her to come forward? I know a lot of people have speculated that the person Mrs. Maxwell actually spoke to was the woman who was sharing MJK's room, and Maxwell didn't really know who MJK was, but I have a question that frames the problem a little differently:

Did Caroline Maxwell know exactly who the victim was?

Let me explain a little what I'm getting at. No one has so far been able to come up with a photo of MJK, or even a very good description of her. Her corpse* was too mutilated to provide a photographic subject for identification.

For the other 4 canonical victims, we have reasonably good photographs; there seems to be general agreement among people who knew them in life that the person in the mortuary photograph was the person known by that name, so that later, when the police made inquiries, they could take the photograph, and when asking people who were unfamiliar with the victim as a living person, could show the photo, and say "Did you see a woman who looked like this?"

With MJK, they had no photo to show to witnesses, and we really don't know how they described her. If they said "The woman who lives at 13 Miller's Court," unaware at the time that another woman lived there sometimes, then a witness could actually picture Maria Harvey, and not be mistaken in any way that we are thinking, and say she talked to Maria Harvey, and not be mistaken, or lying, or wrong about the day.

It's even remotely possible that somehow, if a photograph existed of Maria Harvey, at one point it was mistaken for a photo of MJK, and shown to potential witnesses, although I think that would have come out, so I doubt it, but I'm suggesting it to underline my point that there may have been a lot of confusion about who was actually dead in Miller's Court.

A mistake on the part of witnesses is not the same thing as a miscommunication between the police and witnesses. If police were unable to make it clear exactly who the victim was, then they couldn't get good information from witnesses.

I recently read a book on memory by one of the foremost researchers on the subject, psychologist Elizabeth Loftus. It seems that people have poor recall for where they first saw or learned something. It's a big problem in witness identification, because people who have been brought in to look at a line-up (I think they are called "identity parades" in the UK) will identify the person who most resembles the person they remember, and then replace the sometimes vague or brief memory they have of the actual crime with the clearer memory of the person in the line-up, but not realize the first time they ever saw the person was in the line-up.

For this reason, some police departments in the US have started using officers who don't know anything about the particular case, or who is the "target" in the line-up, present it to witnesses.

Anyway, once witnesses make a statement to police, that usually becomes the version of events they remember best. I'm not really sure how putting a face to a person fits into this when the police don't have a photo, or even a very good description, but I am wondering if it is somehow possible that Mrs. Maxwell initially gave a statement that was entirely factual, but there was some kind of miscommunication over who exactly the victim was, and later the statement got molded into "Yes, I definitely saw MJK between 8 and 8:30."


*For the record, I think the woman generally known as Mary Jane Kelly, who was the actual tenant in the lower room of 13 Miller's Court, and Joseph Barnett's girlfriend for some time, was the actual victim, and that's who I am referring to as "MJK." Whatever else may have been true of this woman, I don't know, because she may have fabricated all her personal history.